Somewhere around here are a bunch of negatives of some artsy-fartsy nudes I did many years ago of my recently deceased ex-wife. They're not sexually oriented but are definitely nudes. Do I make a major effort to hunt them down and get rid of them or do I leave them for the kids to find or not as chance has it?

Totally depends on your family, I'd think. Not that I know your kids, but my guess from knowing you is that they were brought up relaxed enough that arty nudes would not be a major shock for them, at which point I wouldn't worry. It might actually be sort of nice having something showing that their mother had at one point been young and having fun playing around with this kind of thing. I suppose I might mention it to the kids at some point, that the pictures existed, and you've still got the negatives, but you have no idea where, so that when and if they're ever sorting through your stuff the pictures might turn up.

But if I'm wrong about your kids, or about how your ex would have felt about the pictures coming into her kids' hands even after her death, it might be worth doing some searching. How many places could you possibly have old negatives stored?

Natilo writes: Hi, I dunno if this is interesting enough to justify a fpp, but there's a lot of buzz about my friend Maddie's new podcast about investigatory failures in the Jacob Wetterling case. Might be the kind of thing that our crowd would like.

Heebie's take: Let's just get this out of the way:

I think one thing we're doing that's different than Serial is, we're not setting out to solve the case. We're looking at why it hasn't been solved. So, our frame of reference going into it is significantly different, and I think people will hear that, when they listen.

Why is everyone so reluctant to solve crimes from 1989 for my listening pleasure?

The fact that there had been, actually, nothing to panic about was an enormous relief, of course. But it made things all the more eerie the next morning, when we woke up feeling like survivors of a ghost trauma, a minor local-news story. For several hours, we were in the flood of panic and chaos of an ongoing act of terror.

As far as I can tell, for example, nutritional research on any finer grained level than "Eating too much overprocessed food is not a good idea" is all pretty much crap -- if some weirdo diet makes you feel better, more power to you, but the basis for believing in it is pretty weak. Vitamins prevent dietary deficiency diseases: if you don't have them without taking vitamins, you don't need the supplements. Other dietary supplements are all complete nonsense. And you should get off my lawn.

But every so often something silly in this vein looks completely plausible to me, like this from the Atlantic, claiming that good posture and core strength have a significant impact on general stress levels:

"Something about axial control has an impact on stress responses," Strick reasons. "There's all this evidence that core strengthening has an impact on stress. And when you see somebody that's depressed or stressed out, you notice changes in their posture. When you stand up straight, it has an effect on how you project yourself and how you feel. Well, lo and behold, core muscles have an impact on stress. And I suspect that if you activate core muscles inappropriately with poor posture, that's going to have an impact on stress."

So, stand up straight, you'll feel better. And get your hair out of your face: you're much prettier when people can see your eyes.

J, Robot writes: As most of you know from the other place, I spent the past week at Cancer Camp*, near CharleyCarp's place.

Personally, I'm simultaneously strongly attracted to and deeply suspicious of "woo." The camp itself wasn't too terribly woo-ish, but two of the campers sell essential oils, and many campers and staff have dietary restrictions (gluten, dairy, added sugars, meat) that they claim have improved their health and wellbeing. One of the camp chefs--who was incredible--claims that removing wheat and dairy from her diet has basically changed her life.

So. I enjoyed eating all of the healthy stuff, and endured the lack of Diet Pepsi and alcohol, and thought the essential oils smelled alright. At home, we don't cook very much. How much of this stuff reflects the placebo effect, and how much should I actually consider trying to implement? Keep in mind that I'm lazy, still a beginner in the kitchen, and don't want to waste effort and money on something that is unlikely to really help.

*All of the campers and many of the staff have or have had cancer. This past week has been amazing.

Heebie's take: I don't think it's crazy to eliminate a category of food from your diet for a week or two and see how you feel. I assume the goal here is feeling better during recovery, and that nobody is entertaining claims that these dietary shifts will help fight cancer itself.

My own observations on myself are that eating carbs and sugar makes me really want more sugar, whereas eating fat and meat leaves me satiated. (Basically nothing ever moves the needle on the scale, but I operate on the assumption that my vigilance is what it takes to stave off even more weight gain.)(I'm sure you meant a broader set of health indicators than just weight.)

Aw hell, I came across these American Redoubt folks when I was researching places to live a few years ago. It's not mentioned in the article, but this seems to be their bible. I should have been smart and started a business to sell them bunker kits and LifeStraws.

The piece isn't too long and does a nice job of conveying the impression I had of them from message boards: in some ways reasonable people--not always motivated by hate or anger--who happen to be living in an alternate reality.